Empire, Ecology, and Displacement:
Neo-Imperial Violence in Amitav Ghosh’s Gun Island
Dr. S. Jerald Sagaya Nathan,
Assistant Professor,
Department of English,
St. Joseph’s College (Autonomous), Tiruchirappalli,
Tamil Nadu, India.
Abstract: Gun Island (2019) by Amitav Ghosh explores the issue of climate
change as a historic crisis that exists in the form of an environmental
disaster but is historically defined by imperialism, extraction, and inequality
in the world. Instead of defining climate change as a politically neutral or
universally experienced threat, the novel prefigures ecological displacement as
an imbalanced and lived experience, which is most felt by those communities in
the Global South. According to the arguments presented in this paper,
climate-induced migration as it is conceptualized by Gun Island, climate change
serves as the ecological afterlife of the empire. Ghosh uncovers how
environmental degradation, compelled movement and securitization of borders
remain able to recreate imperial hierarchies of power and responsibility
through its transnational story that connects the Sundarbans, Mediterranean
migration routes, and European metropolitan spaces. Based on the postcolonial
ecocriticism, the theory of slow violence by Rob Nixon, and current arguments
on climate imperialism, this paper will argue that the novel reacts the climate
refugees not as victims of natural calamity but as historical agents, whose
views are products of extended histories of colonial exploitation and
abandonment. The strategic application of myth in the novel also upsets
Enlightenment histories of progress by rekindling ecological memory and
unveiling climate crisis as the repeat of unspoken imperial violence. Finally,
it is argued that, in the end, Gun
Island turns climate fiction into a sort of ethical witnessing which
requires historical responsibility, transnational responsibility, and
ecological justice.
Keywords: Climate Refugees; Neo-Imperialism; Postcolonial
Ecocriticism; Slow Violence; Amitav Ghosh; Climate Fiction
Introduction
Climate change is often called the crisis of
the twenty-first century, although the terms used to talk about it tends to
make it look ahistorical. Current political, scientific, and media discourses
are inclined to position climate change as a universal and futuristic crisis an
abstract planetary issue, which will endanger all humanity, without favoritism.
Although such framings create a sense of urgency, they also suppress important
questions of accountability, causation and inequality. When climate crisis is a
collective failure of humanity that has no colonial background or globalized
capitalism, its imbalanced effects seem natural, unavoidable, and morally
blurred.
The novel Gun Island (2019) by Amitav
Ghosh provides a strong response to this ahistorical fantasy. The novel
dictates that climate change cannot be explained outside the long shadow of
empire. In Ghosh, ecological disaster is not a break with the past, but an
extension of it, a of extractive operations, infrastructural abandonment and
geopolitical disproportion that was founded during colonialism and continues
under contemporary global capitalism (Ghosh 9–11). Climate change in this
context is no more than an environment condition but a historical one.
Instead of portraying climate crisis as a
possible future doomsday, Gun Island makes ecological instability
present tense. The novel follows parallel paths through the Sundarbans, the
migration route of the Mediterranean and through metropolitan Europe, showing
that the process of environmental degradation already organizes the daily lives
of millions. The escalating sea levels, erratic storms, and the disappearance
of the means of living is not a prognosis of the future but its present
reality. According to Ghosh, ecological uncertainty has turned into the
background condition of ordinary lives of those people who live on the fringes
of the world economic order (36).
Climate universalism is disrupted by this
narrative viewpoint that tends to dramatically generalize histories of radical
inequality under the guise of collective guilt. He exposes vulnerability by
foregrounding places like the Sundarbans, which have historically been
influenced by colonial forestry, river management, and extractive development,
to reveal it as a creation, not by chance, but rather by design. Environmental
precarity is not created by a geographical factor, but instead a result of
centuries of political choice. Through this the novel is consistent with
critical climate scholarship that opposes the narratives of shared blame
without bringing on the issue of different responsibility.
The other important aspect in the novel is
that of climate displacement. Gun Island does not strive to present
climate refugees as some exceptional individuals, who were made because of
isolated catastrophes. Rather, the displaced populations are presented as
historic actors whose life is informed by historical systems of extraction,
neglect, and exclusion. Migration in the novel is not a deviance but it is an
ecological and economic organization that is based on the empire.
In this paper, it is argued that the concept
of ecological displacement in Gun Island presents neo-imperial violence.
In Ghosh formulation, climate change is the afterlife of empire, which
re-creates imperial hierarchies in new forms of ecological, economic, and
geopolitical imperialism. With a tapest of environmental disintegration,
histories of exchange, and new regimes of the border, the novel displays how
the climate crisis has been used to control movement, whom to remain, and whom
to dispose of. Climate change therefore becomes not in itself an environmental
issue but an ethical and political accounting that requires an historical
responsibility and not a technocratic handling (17678; Malm 149).
Amitav
Ghosh and Gun Island
Amitav
Ghosh has always made his fiction to be at the crossroads of the past and
mobility as well as global power. Throughout his career as a writer, he has
demonstrated a lifelong interest in unearthing the latent continuities that
connect empire and migration and environmental change. These forces, as opposed
to being discussed as isolated phenomena, are shown in his work to be highly
intertwined processes that have defined the life of modern peoples in different
continents and time frames.
Since his first novels, Ghosh has been
questioning the political and emotional implications of colonial boundaries.
The Shadow Lines deconstructs nationalist cartographies by unveiling the
long-lasting psychic and social violence experienced as a result of arbitrary
lines on maps. In an Antique Land, Ghosh continues to upset the Eurocentric
histories by rebuilding the pre-modern webs of trade, cultural interaction that
linked Africa, Middle East, South Asia, way before the European imperial
expansion. These pieces do not subscribe to the view that globalization is a
distinctly modern or Western process, but foreshadow more ancient, non-imperial
histories of movement and relation.
The interest in ecological issues is more
open in the Ibis Trilogy, as Ghosh makes the ecological ramifications of
imperial trade in the nineteenth century impossible to separate the effects of
imperialism on nature and the nature of human beings. The trilogy reveals the
transformation of not only the societies but also the whole ecosystem through
colonial extraction via the opium economy, plantation capitalism, and forced
migration. The nature of these novels is never a passive setting; rivers,
oceans, crops and climates are menacing forces in histories of violence and
opposition. The displacement of people or of landscape becomes one of the
characteristics of imperial modernity.
This historical and ecological vexation has eventually
been condensed into The Great Derangement (2016) where Ghosh claims that the
modern literature has failed, in large part, to address the issue of climate
change. He blames this failure on the predominance of realist narrative forms
that put an emphasis on the psychology of individuals and the odds-on against
the disaster itself and planetary disturbance. Climate change, he stipulates,
has become culturally unimaginable since it challenges the postulations which
have become the foundations of the modern narrative realism, in particular, the
assumption that the natural world is stable and follows predictable laws.
Gun Island (2019) may be interpreted as a creative
reaction to this diagnosis created by Ghosh. The novel intentionally disturbs
the borders of genres, a blend of realism and myth, travel writing, ecological
reportage, and political commentary. It tells the story of a rare-book dealer,
Deen Datta, who, as his inquiry into a legend of the seventeenth century
Bengali leads him, finds himself enrolled in modern tales of climate change and
displacement. The novel switches between the realities of India, Bangladesh,
Europe, and the United States erasing the demarcation between the past and the
present, local and global, myth and material reality.
The peculiar feature of Gun Island in
the works of Ghosh is that the issue of climate change is not only an
environmental problem but also a historical one. The novel also connects the
current displacement to the past cycles of exchange, piracy and colonial
extraction, implying that the current ecological crisis cannot be dislocated to
the economic and political order that was instituted during the period of the
empire. It has been observed by critics that this narrative hybridity allows
Ghosh to express climate change both materially and culturally, evading the
constraints of either a realist or a speculative mode (Mukherjee 168).
Simultaneously, Gun Island is not a
break in the ethical perspective of Ghosh. Similar to his previous pieces of
work, the novel is a foregrounding of marginal lives, precarious geographies,
and knowledge which the mainstream Western epistemologies have marginalized.
The difference is only that the crisis is of a greater magnitude and the
implications are more urgent. Climate change, in Gun Island, is the prism in
which Ghosh holds together his old interests in empire, migration, and
ecological vulnerability.
Combining myth, eco-catastrophe, and the
modern regimes of the border, Ghosh applies his literary project into the
climate fiction space, though he rejects the more escapist or futuristic spirit
of it. Gun Island does not speculate on some otherworld or speculative
technology, instead it insists that the crisis already exists, but occurs
unevenly in a world that has been formed in the ways of imperial pasts. By so
doing, this novel establishes Ghosh as a writer who does not simply see
literature as a form of representation, but as a form of moral interaction with
the forces that have still been shaping the lives of people in the world.
Gun
Island (2019): Detailed
Summary
The Gun Island by Amitav Ghosh is a
multifaceted story, which unites myth, ecological realism, and modern histories
of migration. Travelling freely through spaces and times, the novel follows the
interaction of local narratives and global disasters to show how climate change
is not an abstract menace of the future but a reality that is experienced and
realized.
The novel is focused on the life of Deen
Datta, a middle-aged rare book dealer, with his home in New York, the town of
Datta. Deen is a character fashioned by the rationale and professional
cynicism; he is happy to be detached by superstition, myth, and religion. His
life also takes the opposite twist as he becomes fascinated by a
half-recollected Bengali childhood story the legend of the Gun Merchant, or
Bonduki Sadagar. Deen at first treats the legend like a textual curiosity, of
which to be verified, annotated and historically implicated. However, there
comes a point when the story starts to pull him more than he is intellectually
able.
The legend states that the Gun Merchant is a
successful trading man who angers Manasa Devi, the goddess of snakes and
fertility, by denying her power. Manasa then punishes by releasing a series of
disasters snake infestation, storms and misfortune, which ends up compelling
the merchant to go away by sea. Despite the fact that Deen initially dismisses
the story as a folklore, he gets more and more disturbed by its repetitive
themes of migration, ecological disturbance and the forced movement. What might
seem to be a myth of the past starts finding a strange echo with the present
reality.
Curiosity compels Deen to go to Sundarbans,
the vulnerable mangrove delta that lies between India and Bangladesh. In this
case, ecological issues in the novel take a very acute form. The Sundarbans are
depicted as a terrain that is always facing danger, washed down by the rising
sea level, cyclones, and gradual loss of land. Whole islands disappear,
economies are destroyed and populations are put into precarious mobility. Ghosh
does not show this environment as the background, but as a force that
influences human lives.
Deen meets Piya Roy, a marine biologist whose
professional life is inextricably bound to the facts of environmental
destruction and Tipu, a young man whose family has already been displaced by
the devastation of the ecology. These encounters present Deen with the
boundaries of his intellectual aloofness. Climate change, he starts to
comprehend, is not a scientific abstraction but a state of affairs that
organizes every-day life - where people can live, work and survives.
Deen experiences a journey outside of South
Asia, as the story develops. He goes to Los Angeles and it is followed by
Venice where he gets involved in a loose association of migrants, scholars,
activists, and displaced. Ecological displacement has global aspects, as we
find with characters like Rafi, a young Bangladesh migrant, and Cinta, an
Italian scholar of folklore and migration. As exhibited in their tales, climate
change breaks down the distinction between economic migration, environmental
exile and forced movement. In the novel, mobility is not a choice, but rather a
result of structural compulsion.
In the course of these travels a rational
perception of the world is being progressively disrupted by Deen by a sequence
of supernatural events. Venomous spiders are seen out of place, storms act
erratically and coincidences tend to build up in a way that can hardly be
explained. Such scenes confuse the line between the myth and the material
world. Over time, Deen realizes that the myth of the Gun Merchant is not just a
myth but a literary device with which one can interpret the current
environmental crisis. Instead of contradicting reason, myth is created as an ecological
memory.
The most gruesome scenes in the novel are in
its portrayal of the Mediterranean refugee crisis. Crowded ships, militarized
frontiers and mass murder reflect the moral ineptitude of the modern world
order system. Migration is no longer being discussed as an individual option or
a policy issue but a planetary impact of environmental destruction. Climate
catastrophes lead to those who escape them experiencing hostility,
surveillance, and indifference, exposing how border regimes ensure protection
of privilege and externalize aversion.
At this stage, Deen understands that the
experience that the Gun Merchant goes through can be explained by the current
climate refugees experience- individuals who have to be moved by some factors
outside their control. The myth of the ancient world and the crisis of the
modern world have intersected, and a cycle of displacement (human arrogance,
exploitation of the ecology, amnesia of history) is demonstrated.
In the last chapters, Deen lets go of his
previous demand of rational mastery. He is brought to understand that neither
science nor myth can adequately explain things as he lives in the world.
Rather, the Gun Island implies that a method of cognizing planetary
crisis is found in narrative, which can unite history, ecology, and ethics. The
novel does not provide any resolution or comfort, with the accent that it is
uncertain, interconnected, and responsible in the era of climate change.
Climate
Change as the Afterlife of Empire
It has long been argued by postcolonial
ecocriticism that the degradation of environmental resources in the Global
South cannot be seen outside the history of empire which constituted land,
labour and ecological relations. Colonial rule was not merely just a political/
economic system, but also an ecological regime, a system that restructured
landscapes to become a profit centre to the imperialists. Gun Island centers
its plot around this continuity of history rejecting both climate change as an
unparalleled disruption and climate change as a solely modern crisis. Rather,
Ghosh introduces ecological disintegration as the direct result of the imperial
modernity, the ongoing effect of extraction, enclosure, and infrastructural
violence that still frames vulnerability today.
The continuity is best expressed in the novel
in the description of the Sundarbans. The place is not presented as a distant
or peripheral one but presented as a battleground in which the material
manifestations of the consequences of empire are made apparent. At the beginning
of the novel, the narrator notes that islands were being washed away earlier
than maps could be drawn (Ghosh 41). This is a subtle comment that has deep
implications. It is an indicator of not just land loss but also loss of
historical recollection. With the change in coastline and disappearance of
islands, disappear the narratives, economic means of livelihood and cultural
associations that formerly placed communities to place.
Ghosh expands on this loss with a silent but
disturbing explanation of the loss of islands not in some remote and
apocalyptic future, but in the life of people who are alive (41). The
importance of this moment is that it opposes to apocalyptic futurism. No
imminent end-time scenario is perceived in climate catastrophe but rather as a
current condition within the experience of life. It is not just territory but
the prospect of continuity, of belonging, of inheritance, of historical
rootedness, that is being lost. Environmental collapse hence seems as a gradual
disintegration of social and cultural worlds.
Most importantly, according to Gun Island,
this weakness is not incidental. The Sundarbans are not untouched scenery
abruptly taken by the extravagances of nature, but they are places that have
been subjected to an extended period of colonial forestry planning, revenue
seizure and river management mechanisms established by the British. Colonial
governments had placed forests, rivers and wetlands as a source of revenue, as
opposed to being living ecosystems, and had advanced imperial profit over
ecological stability as demonstrated by environmental historians like
Ramachandra Guha (98101). The implicit way Ghosh places the modern-day climate
destruction in this longer history of ecological manipulation brings into view
the climate change as a step-up of the damage that has already been enshrined
by the empire.
Through preempting these histories, Gun
Island upsets the prevailing rhetoric that places climate vulnerability in
the fate of geographical misfortunes, overpopulated communities, or mismanaged
localities. Rather, the novel reveals environmental precarity as an entity that
has been made, crafted carefully, and systematically over centuries of imperial
intervention. Climate change in this meaning is not a new crisis but the replay
of the historical violence that went unaddressed and now comes in the form of
ascending waters, extreme weather, and displaced people.
This view is very close to the idea of Jason
W. Moore about capitalism as an ecology of the world, where the economy requires
the continuous exploitation of both human labour and non-human nature.
According to Moore, capitalism makes ecosystems cheap and expendable and
considers them as not part of economic calculation despite their relentless
consumption (2). This logic is dramatized in Gun Island because it
reveals how climate change shifts the harm along imperial lines. The same
communities which previously provided labour, raw materials and ecological
surplus to imperial economies now have to shoulder the unequal burden of
environmental downfall (Ghosh 4446). Those who gain the most through extraction
are safe whilst those who contribute the least to the extraction are the ones
who are at the highest risk.
Viewed in this perspective, climate crisis
can be considered as a kind of neo-imperial violence. Empire does not dominate
by the direct use of political power, it dominates by ecological destruction,
disproportionate exposure, and selective movement. The forms in which colonial
extraction was built previously now re-emerge as forms of exposure and
abandonment. The increase in sea level, the loss of islands, and forced
migration are not merely environmental phenomena, they are effects of an order
in the world that still privileges particular life forms whilst disposing of others.
The concept of the empire striking back in Gun
Island is thus no figurative flourish but a diagnosis. According to the
novel, the empire continues to exist but in new shapes, such as climate change,
lacking infrastructures and loss normalization in the former colonies. The
incomplete ecological business of the colonial modernity is unveiled through
climatic change being the means through which imperial power is still executed.
Aren’t these continuities governed by climate crisis, Ghosh manages to turn
climate crisis into a historical reckoning instead of focusing on it as an
environmental issue, requiring not only adaptation, but also accountability,
memory, and justice.
Slow
Violence and the Temporal Politics of Climate Crisis
Among
the most noticeable aspects of Gun Island is an unwillingness to present
climate change as either a dramatic or a dramatic event. Rather, the novel and
its thoughts live in those processes that take lengthy periods of time, often
going unnoticed, and happening hidden. This narrative feature fits perfectly
well with the idea of slow violence as proposed by Rob Nixon, but which he
describes as a kind of harm, which is dispersed and incremental in nature, and
often unnoticed due to its lack of the instantaneousness and spectacle of more
traditional disaster tales (Nixon 2). This slow violence is articulated in
literary form in the novel by Ghosh as erosion, repetition, and attrition are
previewed, instead of being broken.
Environmental destruction is a rare
occurrence in Gun Island. Sea does not seize the territory immediately; it
proceeds slowly, year by year, year by year, to seize a little bit more. One of
the characters notes that the sea does not always come at once, it returns,
every time a bit further inland (Ghosh 58). This gentle point of observation
represents the logic of time of slow violence. The loss is muffled out, made
into a routine, and then it becomes permanent. When one realizes that there is
a serious destruction, it is too late to take any action.
This gradualism has a great political effect.
Since slow violence develops over a period of time, it is usually unrecognized
by the masses and the state. It is not a crisis that must be solved like that,
there is not a spectacle that must trigger international indignation. In Gun
Island, flooding, erosion, dwindling fish stocks and the disappearance of
islands are presented as background conditions and not an emergency. The reason
why these processes are devastating is that they are ordinary. When climate
change is internalized into the everyday life rhythms, the novel proposes, it
can be most dangerous.
Another way in which climate crisis is
experienced unevenly is revealed by Ghosh as she focuses on the slowness of
time. The ecological instability facing communities in places like the
Sundarbans is a reality long before it is made visible and understood by
policy-makers and the audiences of the Global North. Loss shapes their lives in
ways that are intergenerational and not inter-news cycle. This time lag
replicates colonial tendencies of oversight, where misery in the once colonized
lands goes unnoticed until it comes into sight of the frontiers of the rich
countries.
Gun Island is an attempt to defy the prevailing
temporalities of ecological crisis, which anticipates the ecological crisis to
happen in the future. Rather, the novel maintains that climate disaster is
already in motion and it has been going on decades. The story by Ghosh compels
the readers to be aware of climate change not as something a reader could imagine
happening, but as a daily occurrence (Bose and Satapathy 88). The language of
climate discourse, consciously oriented towards the future in warnings,
predictions, scenarios, etc., tends to be displacing of responsibility. When
disaster is ever on the verge it never really ever actually comes.
Another way in which responsibility is
redefined through slow violence in the novel is the focus the novel gives to
the subject. The point is that sudden disasters are mostly discussed in the
context of nature or something inevitable, and political systems can avoid
responsibility. By comparison, slow violence reveals the accumulating impact of
policy choices, infrastructural abandonment and economic interests. In Gun
Island, the slow erosion of land and lives cannot be understood outside of the
history of land management in colonies and neglect in postcolonial periods.
Climate change does not therefore present itself as a shock event, but as the
delayed outcome of past decisions made over centuries.
Noteworthy, social inequality cannot be
separated with slow violence in the novel. Victims of its impact are also those
whose interests lack access to political protection, legal acknowledgements, or
movement. Erosion of land in Sundarbans is not only an environmental
phenomenon, it is a situation which leads to precarious migration, informal
labour and vulnerability to more damage. Instead of causing inequalities,
climate change, through slow violence, becomes a process that intensifies the
prevailing inequalities.
Rejecting spectacle in favor of accumulation,
Gun Island challenges the readers to re-tune their understanding of
narrative urgency. The novel lacks dramatic climaxes and the moments of general
awakening. Rather it requires a long focus on things that are simple to lose
attention to; just because they come in slow. By doing this, Ghosh is
redefining climate change as an apocalypse in the future by making it an
ethical issue in the present; one that needs patience, memory, and historical
consciousness, not a short-term solution.
Gun Island, via its involvement with slow
violence, eventually confronts the politics of stalling that prevails when it
comes to global climate action. Waiting, according to the novel, is too
expensive, and has to wait too long, to wait too long to wait until you have
proof, consensus, and catastrophe. Ghosh achieves this by rendering the gradual
loss narratively visible by insisting that recognition as such is ethical. To
perceive slow violence is to face the fact of responsibility, and to face the
fact of responsibility is to face the systems that enable ecological damage to
continue its being in full view.
Climate
Refugees and Neo-Imperial Border Regimes
The
political urgency of Gun Island is one of the most pressing aspects of the
novel where climate-driven migration and violent border regimes of migrants are
depicted as they are heading to Europe. Ghosh does not want to see migration as
a single case of humanitarian concern or a crisis that occurred in an immediate
response to the personal catastrophe. Rather, he places climate displacement in
a global mobility system of unequal migration, the access to safety,
historically and racialized governance, and geopolitical power.
In the process of people migrating between
climate-sensitive areas of South Asia to Europe, their paths are constantly
blocked by fortified boundaries, groups of detention and surveillance
technologies. These processes are not simply processes that govern mobility,
but they actively recreate imperial hierarchies where some lives are privileged
and others have been made disposable. The borders in Gun Island serve
not as the device of sovereignty, but as the device of neo-imperial control, to
protect the Global North against the effects of environmental destruction it
has inordinately caused (170–73).
Mediterranean is at the center of the
symbolic and material in this story. Once thought of as a land of cultural
exchange and trade, it comes out in the novel as a land of death and desertion.
When Ghosh describes sea crossings, he is rather unsentimental:
It was
now the graveyard of the sea,
but
people kept coming—
not
that they were not aware of the dangers,
but
since it had no other place to go.
(Ghosh
176)
In this text, we can see the moral paradox of
modern migration discourse. Climate migrants have often been viewed as
irresponsible or opportunistic, but Ghosh clarifies that the migration is
necessitated by a need, but not ignorance. The risk of the adventure is quite
clear; what is lacking is a choice. Migration is no longer an option, but a
final resort when the environment is destroyed.
The novel puts the border regimes at fault by
referring to the Mediterranean as a graveyard where death should be used as a
disincentive. The sea is a governing instrument, and its deadly power is
tacitly acknowledged as a measure of de-motivation. This reasoning is an
exercise in necropolitics in which some groups are subjected to death so that
others may be comfortable and secure. The most innocent when it comes to climate
change are made to embark on the most risky of journeys, and those most guilty
of climate change consolidate boundaries and shift risk to others.
This dynamic is similar to the argument by
Andreas Malm that the climate crisis allows novel kinds of imperial power.
Instead of disrupting hierarchies in the world, ecological destabilization
tends to strengthen them, giving reasons to militarize, securitise, and exclude
(Malm 149). The problem of climate change in Gun Island is used as a
reason to build borders instead of destroying the system that created
displacement in the first place. The concept of environmental catastrophe is
redefined and presented as a security threat, whereby the states avoid
responsibility of historical extraction and those who experience its effects
are criminalized.
Ghosh equally provides a persistent criticism
of humanitarian discourse. Although humanitarian responses focus on rescue,
sympathy, and emergency relief, they do not tend to go further with causes and
accountability. Gun Island reveals the boundaries of this system through
the demonstration of the fact that compassion, when deprived of any historical
reckoning, can be accompanied by systemic violence. Rescue actions never oppose
those structures that compel individuals to make risky trips, but only contain
its consequences.
According to Ashna Francis, Ghosh turns focus
off charity and turns to the issue of justice and makes it clear that climate
refugees are not victims of fate but victims of historical injustice (114). The
novel requires the acknowledgment of colonial mining, fossil capitalism and
disproportionate development as a force that is still shaping patterns of
displacement. In such a meaning, climate migration turns into a demand of
reparative ethics, as opposed to benevolent inclusion.
Gun Island defies the tendency to write narratives about
boundaries that are either neutral or unavoidable by foregrounding them.
Rather, it exposes them as political technologies that rank lives in terms of
value, legitimacy and expendability. Climate refugees are not just the ones who
are crossing the borders, but it is also where they are challenged and it is
the afterlives of empire where movement is a privilege and not a right.
By making migration both an ecological and a
historical process, Ghosh brings readers to reflect on their own standpoints in
the global systems of movements and restrictions. It is hard not to keep the
illusion of innocence in the novel. The painful reality of facing the
discomfort of the truth is to experience climate displacement in Gun Island as
to be able to defend some against harm, one exposes the rest.
Myth,
Memory, and Narrative Form
Among
the peculiarities of the Gun Island, its continued interest in myth as a living
form of knowledge and not a museum artifact should be mentioned. Ghosh never
uses myth as symbolism or fantasy, and rather he uses it as a different archive
where ecological and historical truth is re-emerged. The myth of the Gun
Merchant spreads centuries, oceans, cultures, and insists on not being in
folklore. Its recurrence implies that just as the damage to the environment
does not evaporate when neglected, so stories do not evaporate either but they
come back later, modified by time and situation.
Narratives that seem to belong to the past,
as the narrator comes to realize, are not passive, but dynamic and determine
the present in ways that are hard to predict: narratives that were thought to
belong to the past were finding new ways of returning (Ghosh 201). This is not
just a metaphorical coming back. The myth recurs in the same content together
with storms, animal migrations, and displaced people, with the distinction
between narrative memory and material reality being unclear. In this respect,
myth is a repository of ecological memory; it conserves histories which
dominant narratives of progress systematically robbed.
The legend of the Gun Merchant as such is
entrenched in the early modern chains of exchange, piracy and mercantilist
growth. Its resurrection in a novel of climate displacement predetermines the
assertion of Ghosh that the ecological crisis of the present day could not be
detached or isolated in our era of commerce and empire that framed the modern
world. The forced travel of the merchant through the hazardous seas is curiously
similar to the paths of the modern climate refugees and it implies that the
dynamics of displacement recur in different historical circumstances.
Migration, the novel suggests, has not been a singular phenomenon of today but
a repetition of unequal systems in the world.
Through mobilizing myth in such a fashion, Gun
Island opposes linear temporality of Enlightenment historiography and
colonial modernity. Time in the novel bends back into itself, as opposed to
that of the past. The narrator notes that the story of the Gun Merchant does
not seem to be one that had come to a close as opposed to the one that was
continuing (Ghosh 203). Climate change considered through such a temporal prism
does not seem disrupted on an unprecedented scale but as a delayed revisiting
of practices the effects of which had been long postponed. The past is still
there and requires recognition and not closure.
This time disturbance questions the imperial
forward motion that builds on forgetting the bloodshed that brought about the
contemporary wellbeing. Myth is a counter-memory, a memory of what the imperial
histories do not want to know, i.e. the ecological and human price of
extraction, expansion and trade. The application of myth by Ghosh disrupts
colonial epistemologies that draw a line between history and ecology, as well
as culture and nature (Paramesh and Monica 67). Rather, the domains that are
introduced in the novel are highly interwoven, influencing and influencing one
another.
Myth also enables Gun Island to constitute
non-human agency in a manner that realist narration may not succeed in doing.
Abnormal animal behavior, strange coincidences and the apparent intention in
the occurrences of nature run throughout the story. Such scenes are not
introduced as instances of supernatural intrusion but as a reminder of the
shortcomings of human-based rationality. They point to a world where nature is
responsive, remembrant and responsive a worldview that is fundamentally
contrary to colonial ideologies that regarded the environment as a passive and
unlimited source of resources.
At the narrative level, this myth-realism
fusion allows Ghosh to tackle the representational problems of climate change
as such. According to his argument in The Great Derangement, the climate crisis
is challenging to the traditional realism due to its magnitude, uncertainty,
and agency that is not human. Gun Island countermeasures this dilemma by
rejecting rigid generic limits. Myth is made a formal element that increases
the imaginative ability of the novel that makes it perceive ecological unrests
and historical continuities which realist traditions tend to hide.
Gun Island is reinstating storytelling as an ecological
location through myth. According to the novel, rational explanation cannot be
used exclusively to understand the scale of planetary crisis. Narratives,
particularly those that bear cultural memory between generations, present some
means of seeing relations that data and policy frequently tend to ignore. In
this respect, myth does not contradict science, but enhances it; it adds moral
richness, historical acuity and story line.
Finally, the emphasis of myth by Ghosh is
that climate change is not merely a scientific or political issue but it is
also a crisis of memory. The forgotten one, that of empire, extraction, and
displacement, comes back once again through narrative but in a different guise.
Through the fact that myth enables the novel to organize itself, Gun Island makes
the readers to hear the voices and histories that are sidelined by modernity.
By so doing, it turns narrative itself into a process of remembering, a process
that cannot be forgotten and must be treated ethically.
Climate
Fiction as Ethical Witness
In Gun
Island, Amitav Ghosh, however, makes climate fiction a kind of ethical
witnessing, rather than, as it is often thought of, an imagined form of
entertainment or future caution. Instead of thrusting the disaster into the far
future, the novel reminds us that climate crisis is already happening in the
contemporary world defining day-to-day lives in an uneven, unequal, and highly
political manner. Ghosh reiterates about such a widespread moral incompetence:
the propensity to consider climate change as a phenomenon that occurs
elsewhere, detached, or external to the existential experience of the people
that experience relative safety and stability (Ghosh 89). Such a distance
enables the ecological destruction to be recognized at the level of abstraction
and ethically disowned.
The story progressively tries to reverse this
distance. Climate change is becoming harder to dismiss as something distant
whenever Deen comes across struggling communities, delicate environments, and
dangerous migration paths. The crisis is not proclaimed in terms of spectacle
disaster but disclosed in terms of accrued experience- loss of coastline,
overcrowded vessel and living under the permanent condition of uncertainty.
Deen starts to see that the problem of climate change is not a menace of
tomorrow but a state of affairs that already redefined the life of millions of
people (Ghosh 92). This awareness is the step towards the lack of a close
relationship into the realm of moral intimacy, which the novel invites the
reader to experience.
In projecting the present suffering instead
of hypothetical futures, Gun Island is consistent with Adam Trexler, who
suggests that good climate fiction should be about the present, instead of
pushing its responsibility off to the future (7). Ghosh denies the solace of
futurity, which typically lets the reader think the answers are elsewhere in
the time. Rather, the novel is a compelling demand that climate change is
already experienced as a traumatizing experience and especially among the
marginalized groups, especially those in the Global South. In this respect, ethical
witnessing entails the recognition of the fact that the crisis persists and
that doing nothing is a violence by itself.
The novel reveals the boundaries of the
humanitarian discourse, too. Humanitarian responses focus on rescue, sympathy
and emergency assistance whereas most of them do not challenge the underlying
structures that generate displacement in the first place. According to Gun
Island, altruism without responsibility runs the danger of becoming a show, an
attempt to give moral comfort with no political change. In the novel, the main
aim of climate refugees is not to be pitied; it is to be acknowledged about
historical responsibility. They are not dislocated by chance but by centuries
of extraction, environmental destruction, and uneven development which is
structural.
The novel, by its portrayal of border regimes
and migration controls, also implicates readers, especially those found in the
Global North, in exclusionary-beneficial systems. Borders are not only depicted
as administrative requirements but also as ethical boundaries whereby in one
side there are those lives that are safeguarded and the others being
expendable. What may be need in ethical witnessing is more than emotional reaction;
it is an awareness of complicity in global systems of consumption, movement and
denial.
Importantly, Gun Island does not give
narrative consolation. It does not have any redemptive solution, any
technological solution, or any heroic action to balance it all. This refusal is
deliberate. Ghosh opposes the narrative desire to closure since closure is
likely to counteract ethical uneasiness. Rather, the novel brings about a sense
of unease making the readers to leave with unanswered questions of
responsibility, justice and action. In this definition, climate fiction is not
there to console but to disturb.
In this position, Gun Island makes
climate fiction consistent with the traditions of testimonial and witness
fiction, where narration is not a solution, but a continued focus on injustice.
The novel requires the reader not to avoid being uncomfortable. Ethical
witnessing is a continual action instead of a one-time action.
Finally, Gun Island illustrates that
climate fiction can be used as a moral intervention instead of a genre norm.
The novel turns the storytelling into a place of moral confrontation by its
insistence on being close, being accountable, and being conscious of history.
Climate change is no longer an environmental abstraction but a human crisis,
which is based on political decisions and historical violence. By testifying to
this fact, Gun Island makes the readers question not only the manner in
which the stories are told, but also regarding the burden the stories create on
the listeners.
Conclusion
Gun Island ultimately re-contextualizes the issue of climate
change as not a global emergency of the future but a historical reckoning that
is guided by the incompleteness of the legacies of the imperial past. The
novel, through its focus on ecological failure, forced migration and border
violence, demonstrates that climate crisis is a process of continuation rather
than a disruption of colonial extraction and unequal power relations, and is
not sudden or unintended. The ecological vulnerability in the narrative is
never accidental, but it is created by the centuries of exploitation,
infrastructural discrimination, and political marginalization. By introducing
the concept of displacement as neo-imperial violence, Ghosh opens up the uneven
distribution of causes and uneven distribution of sufferings of climate change.
The novel is highly skeptical of
technological optimism and humanitarian idealism as inadequate answers to the
crisis of the planet. Surveillance systems, strengthened borders and emergency
relief can contain temporary symptoms but they leave in place those systems
that sustain dispossession. Gun Island clarifies that climate justice
cannot be attained by means of adaptation action or charity. Rather, it needs
historical memory, moral responsibility, and the desire to challenge the
political structures especially the exclusionary border regimes that convert
ecological violence into additional violence. In this meaning, climate change
becomes unthinkable without issues of sovereignty, mobility and moral
responsibility.
With the combination of myth, migration, and
environmental disaster, Ghosh also stretches the formal possibilities of
climate fiction. Instead of being speculative future that does not correlate
with the current reality, Gun Island witnesses how climate crisis is
already practiced as loss and precarity by already marginalized communities.
The novel does not give in to narrative closure and does not give solace; the
readers are left with ethical demands unanswered in the novel. This denial is
the main key to its political efficacy: it does not allow climate change to be
turned into a technical issue that has a resolution but positions it as an
ethical problem to which readers belong.
Upon its ultimate computation, Gun Island opines
that empire has not vanished, but has been re-formulated through ecological
destruction, militarization of borders, and the discriminatory allocation of
security and mobility. Climate change comes out as the channel according to
which imperial power is still at work to turn environmental disintegration into
an exclusion and control mechanism. Ghosh demands an alternative vision of
political belonging that bypasses imperial logics by foregrounding
responsibility on rescue and justice on charity.
Finally, the Gun Island confirms that
the climate change issue is not only environmental crisis but also historical
and ethical one. The novel requires transnational responsibility, reparative
justice as well as a new ethical imagination that would wrestle with the
intertwined ecology, empire and displacement. By so doing, it makes climate
fiction a mode of witnessing a powerful one, one that does not insist on the
past being beyond, the crisis being remote and the burden being the
responsibility of another.
Works Cited
Bose,
Tapan Kumar, and Ananya Satapathy. “The Crisis of Climate and Immigration in
Amitav Ghosh’s Gun Island.” Journal of Critical Studies in Language
and Literature, vol. 2, no. 3, 2021, pp. 85–93.
Buell,
Lawrence. The Environmental Imagination. Harvard UP, 1995.
Chakrabarty,
Dipesh. “The Climate of History: Four Theses.” Critical Inquiry, vol.
35, no. 2, 2009, pp. 197–222.
Francis,
Ashna. “Gun Island: A Tale of Myth, Migration and Climate Change.” International
Journal of English Language, Literature and Humanities, vol. 8, no. 6,
2020, pp. 110–117.
Ghosh,
Amitav. Gun Island. Hamish Hamilton, Penguin Random House India, 2019.
---.
The Great Derangement: Climate Change and the Unthinkable. University of
Chicago Press, 2016.
Guha,
Ramachandra. Environmentalism: A Global History. Oxford UP, 2000.
Huggan,
Graham, and Helen Tiffin. Postcolonial Ecocriticism. Routledge, 2010.
Malm,
Andreas. Fossil Capital. Verso, 2016.
Moore,
Jason W. Capitalism in the Web of Life. Verso, 2015.
Mukherjee,
Upamanyu Pablo. Postcolonial Environments. Palgrave, 2010.
Nixon,
Rob. Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. Harvard UP,
2011.
Paramesh,
K., and Monica G. “Human and Non-Human Dualities in Gun Island.” Journal
of Research in Humanities and Social Science, 2021.
Trexler,
Adam. Anthropocene Fictions. University of Virginia Press, 2015.
Whyte, Kyle Powys.
“Indigenous Climate Change Studies.” WIREs Climate Change, 2018.